Beyond the Abortion Wars: A Way Forward for a New Generation

By Charles C. Camosy

Cuts through the mass confusion surrounding abortion and lays out solid common ground

The abortion debate in the United States is confused. Ratings-driven media coverage highlights extreme views and creates the illusion that we are stuck in a hopeless stalemate. In this book Charles Camosy argues that our polarized public discourse hides the fact that most Americans actually agree on the major issues at stake in abortion morality and law.

Unpacking the complexity of the abortion issue, Camosy shows that placing oneself on either side of the typical polarizations -- pro-life vs. pro-choice, liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican -- only serves to further confuse the debate and limits our ability to have fruitful dialogue. Camosy then proposes a new public policy that he believes is consistent with the beliefs of the broad majority of Americans and supported by the best ideas and arguments about abortion from both secular and religious sources.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Release date: Mar 12, 2015
• ISBN: 9781467442916

Charles C. Camosy

 Charles C. Camosy, PhD, is associate professor of theological and social ethics at Fordham University. His other books include Losing Our Dignity: How Secularized Medicine Is Undermining Fundamental Human Equality, and his published articles have appeared, among other places, in the American Journal of Bioethics, the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Health Progress (the official journal of the Catholic Health Association of the United States), The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Daily News, and America.

Book preview

9780802871282.jpg

Beyond the Abortion Wars

A Way Forward for a New Generation

Charles C. Camosy

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company

Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K.

© 2015 Charles C. Camosy

All rights reserved

Published 2015 by

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

2140 Oak Industrial Drive N.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49505 /

P.O. Box 163, Cambridge CB3 9PU U.K.

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Camosy, Charles Christopher.

Beyond the abortion wars: a way forward for a new generation /

Charles C. Camosy.

pages cm

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-8028-7128-2 (cloth: alk. paper)

eISBN 978-1-4674-4291-6 (ePub)

eISBN 978-1-4674-4251-0 (Kindle)

1. Abortion — Political aspects. 2. Women’s rights. I. Title.

HQ767.C253 2015

305.42 — dc23

2014041218

www.eerdmans.com

This book is dedicated to the thousands of graduate, undergraduate, and high-school students I’ve had the privilege to teach.

Much of what follows comes from our

exchanges and arguments.

Contents

Foreword

Preface and Acknowledgments

Introduction: Is There Anything Left to Say?

1. Shifting Abortion Politics

2. Who or What Is the Fetus?

3. Aiming at Death or Ceasing to Aid?

4. The Challenge of Public Policy

5. Abortion and Women

6. A Way Forward

Conclusion: Beyond Polarization

Notes

Bibliography

Index

Foreword

After decades of acrimony, gridlock, and fundraising on the abortion issue, there is now quite a lot of discussion about forging a working compromise between those who describe themselves as pro-­life and those who describe themselves as pro-­choice. So far, unfortunately, that conversation is only happening on the pro-­life side; at least, I’m unaware of any pro-­choice leader who has said publicly that abortion should be limited in any way at any point in pregnancy.

The right-­to-­life lobby, however, along with many pro-­life politicians, does see the pain-­capable legislation that would limit abortion after twenty weeks — with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother — as both acceptable and politically possible, though Republicans would, of course, have to take both the U.S. Senate and White House for that to happen. Pro-­choice advocates tend to see this concession as merely strategic: a dangerous step on the slippery, sloped road to a total ban. But the split that the pain-­capable push has caused within the pro-­life ranks argues otherwise. As does strongly pro-­life South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, who recently told me in an interview that only a minority of pro-­lifers would ban all abortions. Polling certainly bears that out.

In this book, Fordham theologian Charles Camosy leans pretty heavily on polling that indicates that the public wants first-­term but not even second-­term (let alone third-­term) abortion to remain legal. He argues that major restrictions are thus inevitable, especially with those in the Millennial demographic expressing significantly more pro-­life views than do their parents. I would counter that, if lawmakers so neatly took their cues from surveys, significant gun-­control legislation would have passed easily after twenty first-­graders were shot and killed at Newtown, Connecticut.

But the importance of Camosy’s book is in his meticulous construction of the ethical and moral case for early abortion in instances of rape. And his proposed compromise fully answers the leading rap on the pro-­life approach: that the true aim is to control women, and that the proof of this motivation is the scant pro-­life support for women when they’re not weighing whether to end a pregnancy — or for children once they’re born. Camosy’s proposed compromise would change that: his plan offers so much real support to women and children that it could significantly reduce the number of abortions performed for economic reasons.

As Camosy knows, I can’t say that I agree with every aspect of his proposal. On the contrary, his compromise suggestion that, after eight weeks of gestation, rape victims would have to provide evidence in court that they were assaulted to get access to a legal abortion is a deal-­breaker for me, even though he is right that women in that situation typically know very early that they’re pregnant. He argues persuasively that the law is a moral teacher, yet I tend to think that criminalizing the procedure (even if physicians are punished rather than patients) would teach lessons other than that unborn children deserve our protection.

Yet he makes so many important points that I hope this work will be widely read and seriously debated. I particularly urge readers from across the spectrum on this issue to consider Camosy’s arguments

concerning all that’s wrong with our binary, you’re either for it or against it discussion;

laying out ethical pro-­life arguments apart from the religious ones that those who disagree so often assume must motivate any objection;

challenging and tracking the history of accepted data;

explaining the implications of the shift from the privacy concerns protected by the Roe decision to the undue burden banned under Casey;

making the case that those who oppose rape exceptions are party to a broader refusal to take violence against women seriously; and

spelling out how what he calls pro-­life extremists effectively give the unborn rights that nobody out walking around in the world has, specifically, to be protected from harm even while threatening someone else’s life.

Finally, what about the hardcore pro-­lifers who want to ban all abortions? he asks. First, let me say something directly to the Catholics who fall into this group. You may not think that the Mother and Prenatal Child Protection Act perfectly reflects your view of abortion, but you really should support something like it nevertheless. You should support it because the Church explicitly teaches that faithful Catholics may support incremental legislative change if the political realities give you a proportionately serious reason to do so. And if you don’t think our current discourse on abortion in the United States gives you such a reason, frankly, you need a dose of political reality.

Though the tide is turning against abortion on demand, it is absolutely not turning in the direction of banning all abortion. There is overwhelming support for abortion choice in the cases of rape and the life of the mother. Indeed, over 90 percent of pro-­choicers support these exceptions, as do almost 70 percent of pro-­lifers. The position in favor of banning all abortion is a political nonstarter. Those who have pushed this position aggressively in the public sphere have done tremendous damage to the pro-­life cause. Pro-­lifers achieve our goals when we help focus the public debate on the overwhelming majority of abortions, most of which the public does not support. But the ban all abortion strategy has allowed pro-­choicers to shift our debate away from the reality of our abortion culture by focusing public attention on the two percent of abortions taking place in the cases of rape and when the mother’s life is in danger.

Finally, I have to commend the way Camosy consulted his female colleagues in writing this book. One he quotes anonymously but quite powerfully and provocatively buttresses his important argument about what choice women really have in a society that in many regards offers us such limited support:

Women need to ask themselves if access to abortion really has done more to liberate them. If a woman does decide to parent, is she really free to make that decision if she has no partner, limited 12 weeks unpaid maternity leave, hopelessly expensive childcare, and on and on and on? Abortion has made women free not to have children, but it has arguably made it more difficult for women to choose to have children. What else have women gained? A hook-­up culture which breeds sexual violence, increasing numbers of STDs, less-­committed and even childlike male partners who couldn’t identify responsibility if it hit them in the face, and a culture that values [women] only when they are young and skinny. Is that freedom?

If you’re starting to suspect that this is a book that will completely satisfy no constituency, you’re right. Whatever your view, it will be challenged here. And if you’re willing, you’re highly likely to learn something as a result.

Melinda Henneberger

Preface and Acknowledgments

The process that led to my writing this book has lasted for more than thirty years. And as I now look back on how it unfolded, I’ve noticed that the key players at every stage have been women. From the school sisters of St. Francis of Assisi, to incredible thinkers such as Cathleen Kaveny, Jean Porter, and my thesis advisor in my doctoral work at Notre Dame, Maura Ryan — women have played the key roles in my formal education on the issues addressed in this book. As a young high-­school teacher, I was blessed to have Kathleen Cepelka and Linda Johnson as mentors. And the influence of activists like Peggy Hamill, Kristen Day, and Serrin Foster helped to ground lofty academic ideas in the reality and experience of actual individuals and communities.

I have also benefited from the insights of women who, especially through our disagreements, helpfully challenged and refined my point of view. Frances Kissling of Catholics for Choice, my Fordham colleague Barbara Andolsen, and a reproductive-­justice advocate who prefers not to be named all forced me to directly face the reprehensible fact that men have historically coerced and controlled women’s bodies. Anyone writing on abortion — but especially male authors — should keep this in the front of their minds.

Helen Alvare and Sidney Callahan, model scholar-­activists, have demonstrated that one need not choose between making rigorous arguments and fighting for their implications in the public sphere. I want to draw special attention to the particular debt this book owes to the influence of Sidney Callahan’s work. Her groundbreaking pro-­life feminism shows that our response to the stubborn vulnerability of women in our consumerist culture need not pit mothers against their own offspring. And the example of public intellectuals such as Kirsten Powers and Melinda Henneberger have shown that Callahan’s ideas can have persuasive and influential defenders in the public sphere.

I would be remiss if I did not highlight the influence of my undergraduate, masters, and doctoral students at Fordham. The untold hours we have spent with these issues over the past six years have shaped this book in very important ways. Taylor Jacob has been particularly helpful as a student assistant, especially with her work on the citations, bibliography, and index. The following people also helped me with the project at various points along the way: Nic Austriaco, Justin Menno, Christian Brugger, Bill Murphy, Beth Haile, Meg Clark, Tom Cavanaugh, David Albert Jones, Chris Kaczor, Frank Beckwith, Beth Johnson, Terry Tilley, Jana Bennett, Candida Moss, Lauren Shea Saddy, Peter Ryan, SJ, and the staff of Senator Robert Casey. And the following colleagues deserve special recognition for having read the whole manuscript and giving me invaluable and detailed feedback: John Perry, Rachelle Barina, Jason Eberl, Hilary Hammell, Bill Gould, Steve Lammers, Costanza Ramadi, Liz Tenety, Andrea Useem, Therese Lysaught, Jennifer Beste, David Gushee, Julie Hanlon Rubio, Sarah Spieldenner, Rick Garnett, and Sidney Callahan. Special thanks also goes to Jon Pott and everyone at William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company for their generous support of this project, and also to Melinda Henneberger for taking time out of her ridiculous schedule to write the foreword.

It is difficult to write a good book on abortion. Some readers of drafts of this manuscript thought that I should broaden the discussion to make it a purely popular book so as to reach the largest audience possible. One suggestion along these lines was that I leave out the challenging philosophical arguments about personhood and instead focus on the more easily accessible fact that a fetus is a member of the species Homo sapiens. But this would have essentially punted on one of the central disputes of the debate, and thus it was unacceptable to me. Others wanted me to write a book that responded in intense detail to nearly every academic argument related to what I say about abortion. For instance, one reader suggested that I make the full case for the way that I use nature in discussing the moral status of the fetus. But doing that would not only have added at least another hundred pages to the book, it would have fundamentally changed the book’s tone and excluded many nonspecialists in theology and philosophy. I also hope it goes without saying that a multivolume project somewhere north of two thousand pages (which would have been required to respond to every conceivable major objection) is also something that virtually no one would read.

Abortion is a subject that is so important to our political, social, and personal lives that I felt a deep responsibility to include as many people as I could into the conversation without unduly sacrificing the rigor of the arguments. Some will say that I move too quickly through this or that topic, while others will say that I spend too much time unpacking this or that academic point. But I have received substantial feedback from many different kinds of people, and after making many changes based on this feedback, my hope is that this book can be read with interest by multiple audiences. If at any point you are left wanting more, I urge you to follow the footnotes. They will often include further discussion and information on other sources (which have been written by me and others) where you can find more detail on these matters. You should also feel free to contact me via email ([e-mail]) or Twitter (@nohiddenmagenta) if you have further questions.

Introduction: Is There Anything Left to Say?

I just searched for abortion in Google books — and got 7,270,000 results. This number does not include the innumerable magazine articles, blog posts, pamphlets, newspaper stories, and editorials that have been written on this subject. Could there really be anything else left to say? And besides, isn’t abortion just one of those polarizing, intractable issues that is useless to talk about? Most people are stubbornly dug into their positions and will almost certainly not change their minds; so the only thing that is likely to come from engaging in a discussion on the topic is an uncomfortable and unhelpful confrontation. It is the kind of issue that can divide families and strain friendships. In a Wall Street Journal editorial that was written just after the 2013 verdict against abortion-­provider Kermit Gosnell, Dan Henninger wrote: No other public policy has divided the people of the United States for so long and so deeply. Abortion is America’s second civil war.¹

To get a taste of the how deep the division and polarization is in some quarters, here are four particularly telling examples that I have selected from the innumerable stories that could have made the same point:

In March 2013, the student government association at Johns Hopkins University denied a local pro-­life student group official club status. They claimed that being pro-­life violated their harassment policy, and they directly compared pro-­life students to white supremacists.²

In March 2010, pro-­life Democrat Congressman Bart Stupak, who had just led the charge to add substantial pro-­life provisions to the Affordable Care Act, was mocked as a baby killer by his Republican opponents because they believed that the bill covered the use of the morning-­after pill.³

In July 2012, the best-­selling author and award-­winning journalist Caitlin Moran appeared on The Cycle on MSNBC and claimed that her decision to have an abortion was quite easy, much like decisions she made about coloring her hair.⁴

In May 2012, Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, Illinois, cited President Obama’s radical pro-­abortion agenda as a reason to compare his path to that of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.⁵

If this is the pathetic state of the debate — if we refuse to acknowledge complexity and nuance — then what is the point of engaging in it? It seems to be governed, not by careful and open presentations of arguments and evidence, but by out-­of-­control identity politics. Not to add fuel to an already roaring fire, but don’t the arguments also usually divide right along religious and gender lines? Isn’t it the case that Christian (and particularly Catholic) men and conservatives are going to be pro-­life, while women and (particularly secular) liberals are going to be pro-­choice, and there just isn’t much anyone can do about it?

Beyond the Conventional Wisdom

Many people hold something like the view I just described. As a result, even those who care deeply about abortion are sometimes fatigued, resigned, and simply don’t want to talk about it anymore. I get something like this view from dozens of my students every semester. I get it from members of the media during interviews. I get it from audience members attending my public lectures. I get it from my fellow academics. It is a reasonable view to hold, and I sometimes feel pulled in that direction. But it is not my view.

While it is true that much has been written about abortion, it turns out that only a tiny minority of pieces are actually worth reading. Most authors have already decided what the answer is before engaging the evidence and arguments, and they use empty rhetoric in an attempt to win and impose a particular point of view. Very few pieces are even aware of what their opponents are actually arguing, much less engaging it in a fair and careful way. The result is confusion and mischaracterization, which, in turn, leads to caricatures and stereotypes; this, in turn, leads to polarization and disengagement. Pro-­choicers are supposedly pro-­abortion and anti-­life. But most women who have abortions already have children, an odd place to be for those who are anti-­life. Furthermore, a clear majority of pro-­choice people I know are personally opposed to abortion (and often very strongly opposed) but struggle to find a workable way to use government to limit abortion access without imposing huge and medically dangerous burdens on women. Pro-­lifers, on the other hand, are supposedly anti-­freedom and anti-­women, but this is complicated by the fact that women are more likely than men to describe abortion as morally wrong. Indeed, women often see far more clearly than do men how the legal choice to have an abortion can push them into situations where they are anything but truly free. As we will see in chapter 5 of this book, men are often at the center of the coercion, so it is not difficult to understand why men support a woman’s right to choose at higher levels than do women.

Therefore, one important reason we need a new book about abortion is because (with a few significant exceptions, several of which are cited in this book) most of what is being written just isn’t very good. But there is another important reason: especially with the rise of the Millennials and Hispanics in the United States, abortion-­related views and laws are in the process of changing. I’ll cite the polls that support this claim in the next chapter, and they will show that while most Americans want to keep some abortions legal, a record low number of people describe themselves as pro-­choice. Millennials are leading the charge: while trending in favor of gay marriage, they are also trending pro-­life, especially when compared to Generation X and the Baby Boomers when they were young. While there seems to be very little support for totally banning abortion, the overwhelming majority of laws being passed in several states have been restricting abortion in significant ways. Especially when we project how things will look given our demographic shifts over the next decade, the question to ask is not Will our national public policy on abortion change? but What will the coming change look like? I wrote this book, in part, as an attempt to wrestle with this question.

One of this book’s central arguments is that confusion and polarization, which feed and build on each other (especially with ratings-­ and hits-­driven media coverage highlighting extreme views), have created the illusion that we have a hopeless stalemate in the abortion debate. By attempting to unpack the complexity and confusion, and also taking time to understand the major positions in the debate, I will try to show that a majority of Americans actually agree about broad ideas with respect to abortion morality and law. Though our public debates are often dominated by the extreme and simplistic positions, the vast majority of Americans have fairly complex and moderate views about abortion. I will propose a new public policy that is not only consistent with the beliefs of this broad majority of Americans, but one that will attract even more support over time as Millennials and Hispanics continue to take their rightful places of power in our culture. Before getting to the policy proposal, however, I will spend some time unpacking the complexity of the abortion issue itself and show that my proposal is supported not only by public opinion but by the best ideas and arguments about abortion.

The Complex Reasons Women Have Abortions

It is no secret that popular media have a real struggle communicating complexity. Thus they struggle not only to accurately describe what Americans think about abortion, but also the complex reasons many women have abortions. People like Caitlin Moran can go on MSNBC and compare the decision to have an abortion with coloring their hair, but the reality for most women is far messier and cannot be captured by a headline or Tweet. Though there are obviously exceptions to the rule, social-­science data indicate that women who have abortions are subject to a number of coercive forces, and their stories often pulse with a sense of brokenness and tragedy.

Consider, for instance, the terrible story of a graduate student named Charlotte Coursier.⁶ Just getting over a sexual relationship with a university professor, she became pregnant (despite using contraception) with her next boyfriend. This young man then informed Charlotte that he was not ready to be a father and would support her decision to terminate her pregnancy. Despite canceling her first appointment, she eventually went through with the abortion. She was depressed for weeks after the procedure, which she described as murdering her child. The professor with whom she had had the previous relationship then reentered the picture, sending her harassing emails, which caused her boyfriend to end the relationship. Devastated about both her abortion and breakup, Charlotte hanged herself.

This story is tragic on so many levels, but it demonstrates the complexity, brokenness, and tragedy that often accompany a woman’s choice to have an abortion. A critic may wonder aloud whether I’ve cherry-­picked a single story to make a point, and it is true that one story all by itself shows virtually nothing. But as you read this book, please take note of the number of times (particularly in the chapter on abortion and women) I cite statistics showing that this story — while on the dramatic end of the spectrum — reveals many important things about why many women have abortions. Furthermore, consider that New York magazine ran a 2013 feature in which they told similar stories of women who have had abortions.⁷ Here are two representative examples:

Heather, 32

Tennessee, 2011 and 2013

I already had two daughters. Neither was planned, and it never, ever, occurred to me to terminate those pregnancies. I was brought up with a very religious background. Now I’ve had two abortions, and if my family knew, my relationship with my family would be gone. My first was two years ago. My husband and I were having financial problems and were considering separating. I just had to shut my conscience down. The doctor was grotesque. He whistled show tunes. I could hear the vacuum sucking out the fetus alongside his whistling. When I hear show tunes now, I shudder. Later, he lost his license. A few months ago, I got pregnant again. My in-­laws have been helping us out financially, so we have no choice but to involve them in our decisions. They gave us $500 cash to bring to the clinic. I felt very forced. I felt like I was required to have an abortion to provide for my current family. Money help is a manipulation. I’m crazy in love with my daughters — imagine if I did that to them? It’s almost too much to open the door of guilt and shame because it’ll all overcome me. In the waiting room, there was a dead silence that’s hard to describe. Everyone was holding in their emotions to a heartbreaking degree. Truly pro-­life people should go light on the judgment, because shame motivates abortions.

Madeline, 18

Minnesota, 2012

I didn’t think I was ready for sex, but my boyfriend pushed it. Rape feels too strong, but it wasn’t really consensual. I didn’t think about the whole condom thing. I was going to a Catholic high school, and in health class we never talked about sex. The scariest part of the whole experience was

Reviews for Beyond the Abortion Wars

[pomo58 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Beyond the Abortion Wars: A Way Forward for a New Generation by Charles C. Camosy attempts to break down the divisive all or nothing form of public and political debate on abortion, address the nuances and come to a compromise position suitable for the vast majority. This commendable goal is not achieved in this ambitious book, though I don't believe it was for lack of honest effort.While Camosy tries to avoid the hardline dichotomies that rule abortion debates (liberal/conservative, secular/religious, etc) he never fully leaves behind the secular vs religious type of argument. Additionally, the part of the compromise that might be considered as the right/Republican compromise calls for the types of assistance and security that should be in place regardless of any position on abortion. In exchange, the pro-choice side is supposed to pretty much capitulate on abortion.While he proposes legislation that would indeed help women and children (which shouldn't be tied to abortion but done simply because it is the right thing to do) he does not believe that re-criminalization of abortion would negatively impact women. Historically, abortions will take place whether they are legal or not. Those with money will find a save avenue while those desperate will go back to, both figuratively and literally, the coat hanger. In other words, many of the women who get an abortion, particularly those who are financially unable or are afraid to let their fellow churchgoers know, risk serious injury and death. That would seem to me to be a negative impact.I do believe that Camosy sincerely tried to argue both sides but his background and own strong background makes it difficult to fully argue the points of most pro-choice advocates. Not to mention that the law is not religious but is secular. If I believe based on science that life does not begin at conception and I also know the Bible does not dispute this, then my belief system does not stand in the way of an abortion because it is not, by any rational standard, murder or "taking an innocent life" as many like to claim. Since medical science agrees, then the law (again, this is not religious law that governs the land but civil/secular law) should allow abortions. Those whose belief systems are less rational and don't take into account medical science are free to not get an abortion even if a result of rape or accidental or unable to support a child.While I obviously do not agree with the "compromise" put forth nor do I believe the information presented was entirely accurate and most certainly poorly expressed on the side of pro-choice, I still think this book should be read by most people regardless of where they stand. This is an attempt to do more than repeat slogans from either end of the debate spectrum and acknowledges that many positions are not as strongly grounded as many believe. As an early attempt to get beyond demonizing those on the other side (no matter which side) it is a good start. I believe it falls short but it opens the dialogue.Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.